Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed.

14. No SMS or social media content.

Any and all social media content is prohibited on this subreddit with the exception of Snapchat-captioned photos. This rule also applies to any reddit-related content. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Bots and bot-like accounts are not allowed

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

It's an awesome tv show from the late 1990s to early 2000s. That follows the administration of fictional President Bartlet. It ran for seven seasons, with the last one being the inauguration of the next president.

If you like politics it's a must watch. If you don't, don't bother.

(Note: 95% of the show is people talking on cellphones or in meetings, but it's still so good.)

All the jewish law he quoted, including the condemnation of homosexuality are in the old testament. The whole idea of Jesus is that he abolished all these silly laws, and said that as long as you believe in him, you go to heaven. That's why christians can eat pork, shave their temples, etc.

However, the condemnation of homosexuality was reiterated by Paul a few times, notably in Romans. Because that's in the new testiment, christians take it seriously. Doesn't matter that it was Paul, and Jesus was silent on the subject. Paul had issues.

What Paul was talking about was the Roman practice of an old man taking young boys as his lover in exchange for educating them. Paul was discussing a mixture of ephebophilia (paedophila except for pubescent children instead of younger ones) and of a sort of intellectual prostitution (exchanging education for sex) and claiming that that was wrong.

These ancient cultural practices are nothing like modern, consensual homosexuality between two (or more) people who are consenting equals. Paul's critique has everything to do with taking advantage of young boys who don't know any better (and don't have any choice if they want to be successful in the culture) and has nothing to do with the fact that the relationships were same-sex.

Also note he has no critiques about the fact the Roman women sleep together. In this age of egalitarianism, why should it be any different for men to sleep together?

The verse says that God gave them "unnatural" desires, which makes sense since those people were straight. God can't give "unnatural" desires to a gay person, since those desires ARE natural for that person.

Sorry, but you're trying to twist the way Paul meant "natural" and "unnatural" here. He did not mean that homosexuality was okay because it was natural for them. He was clearly claiming that homosexuality was the unnatural side of sexuality. Which makes sense, because there wouldn't be that large of a number of straight people doing homosexual acts in a way that was public enough for him to write against.

Unfortunately, the people that would care about what the bible says also believe that homosexuality is a choice - that is, everybody is born straight but they choose otherwise. Not that they're qualified to make that assessment, of course, but it completes their logic in that regard.

well, when Paul fights a one-on-one battle with God and wins, I'll give start giving a shit what he says. Till then, he's just another guy with his own interpretation telling other people to believe what he believes.

Well if we are going to go back to the beginning isn't it important to look at ALL the first Christians, namely the Gnostics, and the New Testament Apocrypha? Considering these early Christian were equally as close to the founding of Christianity, but due to differences in belief, were eventually all but wiped out by Paul and his followers.

It is important to realize that not every book in the NT is written by the author given and that there are other texts in existence - text which were nearly erased from the scriptural history because they did not fit with the narrative of early church, a narrative heavily controlled by Paul.

Of course if you were to read some of the works in the New Testament Apocrypha, the assortment of texts Paul condemned but which nevertheless represent the belief of the Gnostic's, another early group of Christians, you get the impression that there were some believers who were not exactly in love with the Old Testament and understood its contradictions with the teachings of Jesus.

No, more. Though Jewish really isn't the right word and carries about 2000 subsequent years of change and cultural baggage. I see Paul as more less OT than the OT but more OT than the Gospels and many of the Christian communities of the time.

From what I understand, the point of what Jesus said there wasn't that we all had to live like the ancient Hebrews in the desert, but that his coming didn't change the fact that the penalty for sin was death, as the entire point of the Law behind its obvious "Thou shalt not" statements was that no human was truly good enough to go to Heaven. Hence the sacrifices, hence Christ.

Essentially, that his death wouldn't wipe out the penalty that was there, but that it would give mankind a way to get to heaven without the old sacrifices. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, Paul had to settle an argument with those who still insisted on circumcision; i.e., the old Jewish ways.

However, as the new converts to Christianity weren't Jewish, I believe they weren't required to to submit to the Levitical law about sacrifices and uncleanliness, etc., but were still all told to live by the general moral code present in the Law which also includes the disapproval of homosexuality (found in Romans), and stuff like the Ten Commandments, which is summarized in the New Testament by Jesus as basically Love the Lord your God with everything you have, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Which was Paul, of course. Shouldn't Jesus's own words have higher precedence than Paul's? After all, if God is all powerful and all knowing, how does it look for him to say "“Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law(torah), until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) and then in Acts 10:9-18, redact a section of the law (and certainly more than the smallest letter!)

This is something that has always confused me about Christianity. Why is it accepted that Jesus, the supposed perfect sacrifice who came to perfect the law, needed an editor?!

From Jesus alone, it seems that the Old Testament is still fully in effect. The only change is that now you're supposed to frown at sin rather than kill people (Whosoever among you is without you cast the first stone/Judge not, lest ye be judged.)

Actually, from a "pure Christian" perspective (as in someone who only goes by the words of Jesus), Paul is the evil corrupting force that Paul warned about. In other words, "the devil got into Christianity by claiming that the devil was infiltrating Christianity, and that he knew how to fix it." Hmmm... reminds me of modern politics!

Seriously, if you cut Paul out of the Bible, Christianity becomes a wonderful religion with a few funny traditions, but thoroughly accepting of all people. Once you add Paul in, it becomes a weapon to spread hate.

Starting with Paul and leading to the Council of Nicaea and all the developments that followed, Christianity was jerry-rigged to become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Anyone can see that the origins of the religion, in what Jesus preached, clashed with a lot of what the Roman Empire stood for. Yet somehow a few centuries later the religion is endorsing everything Roman.

It definitely became a vehicle to spread hate, because Empires and Nations/States need that to muster the troops when going out to conquer.

In some ways, the media of today fulfills that role. Look at Fox News and the portrayal of Islam in the West. Not just on TV, but also in books, film, etc. For a long time, Western academia refused to acknowledge Islamic civilization as a subject worthy of objective/unbiased study. That just further helped the political goals of Western leaders who were at war with the Muslim world until World War 1 and then again soon after (via Israel then later again at the end of the 20th century).

However, the media of today has stepped it up. I think a lot of what passed for religious-driven anti-Islamic sentiment in the 19th/20th centuries was a holdover from past Roman Catholic tradition (the Crusades and whatnot). But Europe had plenty of friendly relations with the Muslims by then. The British in particular. German and British officers actually became commanders and admirals in the Ottoman army and navy. The Ottomans fought with the Germans in World War 1. The Ottoman Empire, a Muslim caliphate, had become a far more Westernized state than many Muslim nations are even today. The United States had its adventure in the Mediterranean, from which the Marines got their Mameluke sword and from where we got Thomas Jefferson's (I believe it was) famous statements that the US was not at odds with Islam and the US was a secular country. The British counted millions of Muslims the world over as subjects of its empire and any military threat to its dominion had long since passed. British academics, still struggling with the Orientalist bias, did not view Islam as a threat and that afforded them some luxury in starting an honest Western academic tradition of how to study Islam and its civilization.

This progressed into the twentieth century where Communism became the main enemy and the media and popular culture functioned exactly like the Catholic Church of old in serving state political interests by whipping up the public into what the leaders required.

During the '80s, as this article brilliantly points out, Muslim terrorism (even against the United States) was at an all time high but nobody batted an eye. Because we didn't view Islam through the one color tint of the magnifying glass we had focused on Communism at the time. Communism was evil, Islam was complex. Some Muslims, like the Afghans, were heroes. Others were pissed at Israel and got confused and started attacking the United States, hey... it happens.

But once that state apparatus (notice how I address the media now?), after communism, turned towards Islamic terrorism as the next "new" threat (wasn't new at all), everything changed. Now we were using that same one color tinted magnifying glass on Islam that we had used on Communism.

What's the difference here between the media (and popular culture at large) and religion in the days of old? The harder you look, the more you'll come to realize there isn't any.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Is Christianity really the religion of the West today? Or is it (the religion of today, I mean) really the culture that every Westerner exemplifies, whether conservative or liberal? Or perhaps there's a name for this state apparatus which controls and manipulates the people into willingly going along with what its leaders want. Religion filled the role once upon a time, but now media and popular culture at large does.

In function, what's the difference between a fascist state and the old Empires and monarchies and the Western states of today? The West today is peddling a more agreeable philosophy, that's about it. But it's doing it in the same traditional fashion that states/civilizations always have. The same old human social rat race game called conquest.

People have attempted to transition Christianity back into a personal religion again, but it's been irrevocably altered from the centuries it was used as a state apparatus for control. Catholicism can rest on the Pope to just dictate the religion to everyone (and my, how the Catholic Church's tone has changed in the last two centuries, hasn't it?), but Protestantism can't get around the nature of what Christianity was twisted into in its early centuries. And thus you have American religious conservatives who think we have to go and conquer the Muslim world to wipe out Islam (where have we heard this before? like say, 700-800 years ago?), execute gays, kick out foreigners, and that we're under assault by "liberal forces".

Look at it this way, was the state serving Christianity all those years when Europe was Christendom? No, Christianity was actually serving the purposes of the state. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity after modifying it. Were we serving capitalism all those years in the cold war against communism? Or was capitalism serving the purposes of the state? What do I mean by state? Those in power.

Civilization is fucked. It all boils down to something that existed even in our caveman days. Some humans want to lord over others.

EDIT: By the way, one of the best definitions for religion I've heard is "social order". Religions were actually some of the first social orders and a key part of human civilization. Religion used to be a whole lot more than what we call someone's set of personal beliefs about spirituality today.

Starting with Paul and leading to the Council of Nicaea and all the developments that followed, Christianity was jerry-rigged to become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Anyone can see that the origins of the religion, in what Jesus preached, clashed with a lot of what the Roman Empire stood for. Yet somehow a few centuries later the religion is endorsing everything Roman.

How was it "jerry-rigged"? Wasn't it Constantin who made the roman empire endorse christianity, because it was his mother's faith?

Early Christianity was the first religion to accept all members of society, and wasn't exclusive to race, social status, health, or gender. The reason it spread so quickly throughout the Roman Empire was because it was popular amongst slaves, servants, women, and most of the lower class.

How was it "jerry-rigged"? Wasn't it Constantin who made the roman empire endorse christianity, because it was his mother's faith?

I think he did that because it became a far more convenient platform for the ruling authority by that time. The only purpose of religion in an Emperor's eyes would be as a tool to control the populace. Christianity became popular, as you described, and thus became a better choice.

Constantine did not make it the official religion as is.

From Wikipedia,

Catholic Christianity was legalized in 313 under Constantine's Edict of Milan,[35] and declared the state religion of the Empire in 380.[36] After its legalization, a number of doctrinal disputes led to the calling of ecumenical councils. The doctrinal formulations resulting from these ecumenical councils were pivotal in the history of Christianity.[37]
The first seven Ecumenical Councils, from the First Council of Nicaea (325) to the Second Council of Nicaea (787), sought to reach an orthodox consensus and to establish a unified Christendom.

In 325, the First Council of Nicaea convened in response to the rise of Arianism, the belief that Jesus had not existed eternally but was a divine being created by and therefore inferior to God the Father.[37]

In order to briefly express the basic tenets of the Christian belief, the council promulgated a creed that became the basis of what is now known as the Nicene Creed.[38] In addition, it delineated Church territory into geographical and administrative areas called dioceses.[39] The Council of Rome in 382 established the first official Biblical canon when it listed the accepted books of the Old and New Testament.[40]

A lot of stuff happened after its legalization and before/around 380 in order to conserve power in Christianity in Rome. Rival doctrines and sects were snuffed out.

I wish I had more than one upvote to give. You've stated much of my beliefs in the matter wonderfully. I do, however, disagree with one thing you have said. You mention that Christianity cannot really transition back to being personal.

That's not just Paul. That's the whole Bible. There are very few parts of the Bible thought to have just one author. There's even evidence that the entire early Old Testament, including Deuteronomy and Leviticus, were forgeries written in the time of King Josiah, then convieniently "discovered" when the temple was being renovated.

In the New Testament, there were litterally dozens of accounts of the life of Jesus and his desciples. One of them even described Jesus as being the founder of a fertility cult! The early church fathers picked the books they liked and actively campaigned to destroy the rest, a feat they practically succeeded in doing.

You say that like the other books were just as legitimate. If George Lucas comes out wanting to get rid of fan fiction about the Star Wars universe, would you say that he was just picking the ones he liked and destroying the rest? Maybe, but I doubt it if you mean it in the same way you meant it in your post.

Acts was written by Luke, not Paul. And Acts 10:9-18 refers to Peter's dream and actions. It has nothing to do with paul.

The laws in the old testament were given to a particular nation at a particular time in history. There is underlying truth behind all of them, and good reason for all of them. Some are universal, some only applied to that nation at that time. For example, the land laws and the year of jubilee and laws like that. They clearly only apply to that nation at that time, not to everyone everywhere. Other laws, like not murdering, or not worshiping idols apply to everyone at all times.

And I believe the law refers to many the jewish books (most of the OT I believe), not just the Pentateuch.

What I said above was true of the OT at the time, and is still true. There are good reasons for every law, and that underlying truth still holds. The specifics that refer only Israel , though God's will for Israel, are not meant for us.

Because Jesus was clearly the final sacrifice, removing all need for further sacrifice as prescribed in the OT, this clearly abolishes the OT laws concerning sacrifice. They were necessary before, and good to understand the value and purpose of Christ's death, but once Jesus died for our sin, sacrifices were no longer necessary. This is a clear instance where Jesus changed something from the OT. abolished is not exactly correct. Since it is a new covenant, some of the regulations of the OT are no longer necessary for this new promise.

Since Jesus clearly did not mean for sacrificial laws to remain, then we need to take a closer look at what he meant in Matthew.

Certainly he means prophecies (what good is a prophecy that doesn't come true). He also means the truths about history (obviously). Certainly he also means truths about the Living God. I would have to categorize everything else to be thourough, which i won't do now. I think that Jesus was affirming the truth and goodness of the OT in a general sense, and that it was inspired by God.

And besides, why do Paul's writing not constitute inspired scripture? Weren't all the OT books written by men? And indeed, all the gospels as well. Why do you discount Paul's writings merely because they were Paul's? In fact, Peter confirmed Paul's apostleship, and therefore authority in 2 Peter 3:15-17. So it is not on Paul's word alone, if that weren't enough.

It is highly subject to debate whether the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke. There is substantial debate on that subject, with no clear consensus. It was almost certainly not Luke the Physician who may have been a contemporary of Jesus. Some have even conjectured that it may have been written by a woman. In fact, the historical accuracy of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole has been seriously called into question by numerous commentators.

It is true that if one goes specifically by Jesus, then yes, some parts of the Old Testament law are modified, but not substantially. The Old Testament provides the blueprint for a theocracy, with both religious law and secular law blended. While it can be argued that those laws may have only applied to one nation, that is only imposing a modern view upon the scripture: indeed, in the time they were written, government and religion were so closely linked that one could make a very strong argument that Christians should observe, at least among themselves, the Judaic land laws, year of Jubilee, and so forth. While one may say that they apply only to one nation at one point in time, it is telling that that view is not mentioned at all in the Bible. Sacrifice, death penalties, and most judgements are out, however, as they were replaced with the death of Jesus and specific "over-rides" of the original Law.

Paul has long been a polarizing figure in the history of the church, and I fall firmly into the "anti-Paul" camp. I specifically attack Paul for a number of reasons. There is substantial disagreement between the religions set forth by Jesus and by Paul. For example, Jesus taught that both faith and works were required for salvation---if you had faith, you would naturally follow through with works to the best of your abilities. For example, one of the base requirements of salvation was to give up worldly possessions that prevented you from following Jesus. Paul taught that faith alone was sufficient, thus laying the groundwork for a religion that was easy to pay lip service to with no real attempt at personal transformation. Jesus preached that it was necessary to approach the Gospel and the word with the innocence of a child, and to believe earnestly, yet openly, as others might believe in ways different from your own. Paul taught that a mature believer puts away the foolish beliefs of childhood and accepts the church leader's dogma, leading to modern Christian intolerance. Jesus taught that those who do not hear the word but are humble and love their neighbors were destined for heaven; Paul taught that they were doomed to Hell. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus firmly and clearly stated that the Law was 100% still in effect, save the parts he had fulfilled. Paul, and the books that talk of him, had little trouble with revising the Law, including examples such as the inclusion of forbidden foods in one's diet. In fact, such parts would not be repealed until the Earth and Heavens had passed from existence according to the Sermon on the Mount!

And I'm just getting started. Jesus specifically instructed that prayer and belief were private things---one should go into a closet, alone, to be with God. In fact, Jesus specifically forbade worship in front of others, public prayer, and even any form of prayer beyond the Lord's Prayer alone! (That's right---praying for a sick relative is forbidden under Jesus's teachings, specifically because God already knows.) In fact, Jesus preached that all Christian activities were to be secret; even helping the poor was to be done as anonymously as possible. I think it's safe to say that Church, beyond simply reading the Bible together and talking about it, is completely banned under Jesus. Paul reacted to Jesus's teachings by organizing churches all over the known world; his epistles are almost all written to establish the administration of his churches. Jesus was always willing to fellowship with the lowliest of sinners and instructed Christians to do the same; Paul instructed his followers to shun people who were not like them, establishing a modern Church tradition that has led to hundreds of contradictory denominations and hatred for other religious traditions. Jesus instructed people to feed the poor; Paul specifically instructed that people who could not work were not fit to eat. (Was Paul the first wingnut Republican? I think so!) Jesus was completely equal opportunity, interacting with women as often as men and on the same terms; Paul forbade women from participating in church activities or arguing with superior menfolk. Finally, Paul was the one who revived the idea of gays being evil, and reiterated that they should be put to death, despite Jesus firmly ordering that sinners were not to be punished---that being reserved for God alone.

As shocking as it may sound, I could go on for six more paragraphs like that if I had the inclination. I did a very detailed study on Paul when I was younger, trying to discover where Chrisitanity had gone so wrong. I can provide verses for all of my statements if you desire, but you might benefit more from reading about it yourself if you are a believer. (Personally, I am an agnostic.) I think I have firmly established that Paul was in no way a follower of Jesus. In fact, in his claims that he was "correcting" evils in the church, it seems obvious that he was in fact using the fear of evil as a way to pull people to his contradictory religion. In addition to Paul's obvious corrupting influence on the early Church, as the whole of the Acts of the Apostles is heavily in question as being authentic, I feel fully justified in throwing out anything that Paul touched wholesale.

As a final point---what kind of perfect sacrifice and teacher is Jesus for the world if he needed that much revising?! I feel that point cannot be stressed enough. And I'm not the only one who feels this way about Paul. As great a luminary as Thomas Jefferson stated that Paul was "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." And boy did he do a good job.

EDIT: Wow. Sorry about that wall of text. This subject fires me up though, because Jesus's version of Christianity is a wonderful religion in many ways. Paul's version has lead to more pain and anguish than just about anything else I can think of in this world.

Actually you are somewhat incorrect about this, as some have already pointed out in these comments. The idea of Jesus was not abolishment of these old laws but rather modification. Most importantly, to replace the OT God of vengeance and retribution with the "new" God of love and compassion. The old laws were still very very much valid (except those few directly refuted by Jesus), the consequences of breaking them were simply "reduced". No longer was breaking the law an irreversible sin that should be punished by death, it became a private matter between that person and a God who will forgive him if he shows penitance.

What abolished most of those silly old laws about pork, clothing and hairstyle was in fact the Catholic Church and many of its spinoffs. Most Christians (those vocal American fundies excluded) consider the Bible to be the starting point of their religious beliefs, not the sole truth. As in society, religions are but the sum of their members and those members can hold wildly varying convictions. As these convictions evolve with time, so do the religions. The Catholic Church will adapt when needed, it's a master at survival. In a few centuries, it will embrace homosexuality just as it now embraces hundreds of concepts it once violently strived against.

I have a question about this - people in the comments are saying that jesus didn't exactly get rid of the OT laws etc etc, but that's not what christians believe. They argue that because gays = evil is in the NT then it is worth fighting about. I'm curious if there are any laws in the NT that christians commonly disobey?

maybe, give away all your wealth (is that even in there?) - but are there any others?

(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The original translation is thought to have referred not to men having sex with one another, but to raping their conquered enemies( possibly men and women). This was a common practice of the time, looked down on by Christians.

Romans 1:26-27 would have no relevance referring to practices of homosexuality as a life choice at the time it was first translated to text.

I don't know why people feel this is such a problem. There was a time when submissions like the one you linked where relatively common throughout reddit and people did not have a problem with it appearing outside of /r/atheism. They were able to handle it in a mature manner and be respectful of others opinions (of believers AND of atheists).

It seems to me that with the massive influx of new users to this site we lost this luxury and any submission that's even remotely controversial (as atheism and religion related stories often are) needs to be confined to it's own subreddit lest we end up with a massive flame war. I think this is the real problem here, that we seriously can't even discuss things like this without it polarizing the community and people essentially saying you aren't even allowed to present anything that explicitly denies or even questions Gods existence.

No publisher today would dare publish the bible if it's never been seen before and was not proven to be of historical value. The hate in the bible is so incredulous it's mind-numbingly ridiculous by even the most primitive of human standards today. It's a book of insane fantasy pitched as truth.

A study was once held (I lost the resource, if you got it, please link it) in which a pack of religious school children were told horror stories plagiarized right out of the bible except the names of idols were switched with names like Tom and Jerry. The terror stories were the same but the names were changed.

In the end, the kids were asked if the terror acts committed were justified, right, moral, etc and the kids were quick to acknowledge right from wrong. The kids all disagreed that anything terrible was right. Yet, when the kids were asked if they believed in the bible and everything in it, they all agreed it was the way the truth and the light (or something like that).

Once the Bible established slavery, and other odd in my opinion notions, to strictly adhere to. I was expecting the additional chapters to help guide me on proper trade values for my slaves and children. Sadly I was mistaken. I'm glad I can at least point to the Bible the next to a TSA agent is patting me down and tell them it is wrong.

We do not know what Jesus said or did. All we know about Jesus' life are about a dozen contradicting accounts, the earliest of which were written at least 30-40 years after his death by unknown authors none of which are considered to have been apostles. All of these have been translated and edited numerous times over the centuries, and only four of them are even considered Church canon.

For all we know, Paul's opinions on homosexuality are 100% in line with those of Jesus. The real problem is not whether homosexuality is a sin or not. The problem is many Christians sinning themselves when condemning homosexuals. "He who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not lest thou be judged" and all that.

Homosexuality was only seen as a sin because it wouldn't produce kids in times of small populations. Now I don't think that's a problem, homosexual couples can adopt. There are too many kids without parents these days.

I don't think this has anything to do with not believing in God, it's just an example of someone who has used their religion as an excuse for their own prejudices having their bigotry turned back against them in a humorous way. It's a little troubling that everything on this site involving religion has to be interpreted in terms of believers vs. non-believers.

As a Christian, it is irritating to see fringe idiots being presented as the spokesperson for the entire religion. Said idiots are unfortunately the most vocal individuals and get the most attention. What doesn't get any attention are the silent Christians who actually have a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, along with wisdom, tact, and a love for people...Christian or not.

After we've all had a good laugh at the Bible, I'd like to make this fair and clarify some things. Let me be the first to say how poorly people like this "black and white" woman handle this topic.

Yes, homosexuality is sin according to the Bible. But you know what? It's no worse than heterosexual sin. Misguided Christians place it on this pedestal of depravity, acting like it's so much worse than other sin. Homosexuality is certainly unique because of its opposition to nature, but all sin is equally offensive to God. I'll say it again: all sin is equally offensive according to the Bible. James 2:10 says if you commit one sin, just one...you are guilty of breaking the whole law. Now obviously that includes everyone. But that's where Jesus Christ comes into the picture. That's another conversation though.

Back to homosexuality. It should not be elevated above other sins. God hates fags? Really? Look at this, Proverbs 6:16-19...

"There are six things which the Lord hates; yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

I don't see homosexuality in that list. Also, look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11...

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Look at what homosexuality is listed alongside with. It's not special, it's not a "mortal" sin like in Catholicism. Now all this is not to say that God thinks it's ok; it still is sin. But look. He hates divorce just as much. And adultery. Like I said, heterosexual sin is no different and should not be minimized.

I have homosexual friends and acquaintances. Homosexuality is the last thing I bring up to them. Why? Because we are all sinners, and we all struggle with different sins more than others. I'm not going to self-righteously act like my male friend having sex with his boyfriend is any worse than my own lustful thoughts or pride. At some point the homosexuality does need to be addressed as sin, but it's just one part of a bigger problem...our sin nature. Just like any other sin. I can't stress that enough.

As to the specific remarks this person on facebook made in response to miss black-and-white...

So is not treating your body like a temple

Yep. I don't need to explain this one.

In Mark, divorce is prohibited

Same thing. I don't excuse divorce.

And ladies should have their head covered

This is talking about having long hair. Longer hair for women is normal, yes?

She lists a number of Old Testament passages that I'm too lazy to quote individually and can all be addressed together. I see it happen all the time...scoffing non-Christians quote some of the more extreme OT laws to prove how seemingly ridiculous Christianity is. News flash: Old Testament laws do not apply to us. Christ's death on the cross provides us with perfect atonement for sins, and does away with the Mosaic Law. That means all the laws about stoning, execution, homosexuality, tattoos, haircuts, unclean animals, you name it. Everything in Leviticus, Number, Deuteronomy, all that. That was for Israel in the pre-Messiah era under the old covenant. But Christ abolished it. That's why we don't sacrifice animals anymore. Because He was the perfect sacrifice. I don't want to preach. All I'm saying with that is, please don't use those laws and passages in your arguments concerning Christianity today. Because they simply don't apply.

However one clarification - Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish (do away with Mosaic Law) the law but to fulfill it. As I understand it, that means that he has satisfied the required payment (IE Death) and so now there is no need to follow the law to get into heaven.

This is true. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets according to Matt. 5:17. He fulfilled the prophecies of the coming Messiah. And by being completely sinless, He followed (fulfilled) the Law perfectly so that we wouldn't have to. His death did indeed satsify the required payment for sin, which is death according to Romans 6:23.

The laws of the old testament were written to keep the Israelites in line during their time wandering in the desert and more importantly after Moses died when they were in the promised land faced with the temptations of the people living there. This is also the explanation (like it or not) behind the command to kill all the people living there, to prevent these temptations. Of course, the Israelites were quite awful at following God's laws.

These laws are not intended to bind anyone living under the new covenant (after the coming of Christ), although they can still guide. There are only two base commandments:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

These commandments are only to guide the followers of God, not those outside of his covenant. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's"

This is not to say that homosexuality is not a sin, just that God is going to be the one to bring judgement, not man.

So is JUDGING OTHERS! Christ spoke out (many times) against JUDGING OTHERS! HE DID NOT JUDGE the whore nor did HE speak out against homosexuality anywhere. HE had a lot to say about people who falsely claim to be his, running around yelling at people, pointing fingers, casting stones at others that they judge to be unworthy. HE set aside a special place in HELL for people like you. REPENT of your EVIL JUDGMENTAL WAYS NOW!

Anyone else ever feel like everyone on the planet surely already knows the context for why the Bible argument is problematic? And yet, every time I retell it somewhere, at least one person says they never realized. Oy. It's fighting an up hill battle, folks.

I've seen a number of versions of this quote now. Just for pendantary's sake...there wouldn't be any problems with football. Footballs, despite the nickname, aren't made from pigskin, they're made from cow leather.

Secondly, if Patti was a legitimate Christian (i.e. not just a hateful fanatic who happens to go to church), she would be well aware that her task is to show love to non-Christians, not condemnation. Of course, in due time she would be obliged to show Lacey the sinful nature of homosexuality. However, because Lacey obviously shows no interest in the faith, she is by no means deserving of reproach from Patti. That is all.